by Lauren Reynolds

Created on: May 23, 2008

The crowd murmurs excitedly, but as a figure ascends the platform, silence permeates the air. "Thank you all for your support throughout my campaign " Clapping consumes the spectators, who have awaited this moment. The smiles of the people testify to their enthusiasm as they exercise one of their many constitutional rights, political participation. Scenes like this have been playing out nationwide on the bustling stage of American politics ever since democracy prevailed, giving the people the right to rule by the appeal of their ideas rather than the royalty of their blood. Today, increased campaign spending is the sidekick in the legend of democracy, exposing and involving the electorate to government as well as winnowing the pool of inept candidates.

It is often claimed that mudslinging is funded by excessive campaign financing, money that will be used towards the next thirty-second commercial probing a clandestine, although often untrue, past of a competitor. However, though such advertisements may not contain completely substantive information, many fail entirely to recognize the benefits of additional campaigning. Television and magazines increase public exposure to political issues and generate enthusiasm. If little money were spent advertising political platforms, the people would continue shuffling through their lives without a concern or voice in government.

However, in light of increased campaigning, forces like American election law have worked to minimize the influence of corporations and increase that of the people in order to make politics more democratic. By limiting company donations to $5000 per election, candidates have been forced to vie for the support of the majority rather than depending solely on the wealthy for funding. They must work to win approval, flaunting their award-winning smiles across the entire nation. Such actions encourage widespread democratic support: everyone is involved in the government.

Campaigning also exists as a litmus test, filtering out candidates who cannot handle administrative responsibilities. Present-day campaign spending acts as a rigorous test of organizational and financial aptitude. In the past, potential politicians have had to deal with few administrative undertakings before entering office - a practice that has resulted in corrupt leaders. Ulysses Grant was elected President in 1868 based solely on his acclaim as a Civil War hero. His cohorts cared less about his perspective on leadership than his glorified past and as a result, his presidency was full of major scandals and economic panic. It was a downfall of the true pillars of democracy.

In an America without campaign spending, democracy would be reduced to a state where people do not acknowledge their freedoms and rights, destroying our Founding Fathers' dream. Luckily, however, increased campaign spending preserves their dream to better the lives of their posterity. It enables political education among the people. It encourages leaders to involve the common man. It ensures America a capable and responsible President. Only this practice can call the true American voice, one that reverberates with the consonance of a unified people.

Learn more about this author, Lauren Reynolds.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.